Pages

At our LFR table yesterday, a player presented us with this bizarre conundrum.

He's playing a Drow, and he took both the Instinctive Darkness and Shadowslip Feats. This resulted in the following exchange:

1) his character is targeted by a Melee 4 attack. He's currently three squares away.2) Instinctive Darkness has his cloud of darkness racial power trigger as an immediate reaction to being targeted by the melee attack.3) Shadowslip allows him to shift 2 squares as a free action whenever he uses cloud of darkness. The player presents the argument that this is a triggered free action. As a result, it functions similarly to an immediate reaction to the use of cloud of darkness. He then shifts out of reach of the attack.

A lot of this is contingent on the fact that "being targeted by an attack" occurs before the attack roll is made- as best as we understand, this allows a Paladin's Divine Challenge/Divine Sanction to trigger before the attack roll is made (thus if the damage somehow kills the enemy, the attack itself is negated). Thus, the intent of Instinctive Darkness is clear- you target the Drow, he obscures the spaces around him before the attack roll is made, thus reducing the chance of the attack to hit.

(Which is why I believe it's a reaction to the targeting of an attack; a standard interrupt to "you are hit by an attack" to increase your defenses allows you to change your defenses, but does not penalize the attack roll- by the time the attack roll result is known, it's too late to give that an attack a penalty. If this is not the case, then the Feat is needlessly confusing for no good reason!).

Since the power must be resolved before the attack roll, and Shadowslip resolves immediately after Cloud of Darkness, it appears that the shift then also occurs before the attack roll is made.

The counter-argument, however, states that a reaction ability to being targeted by an attack cannot result in a scenario where the attack is no longer legal (ie, the shift moving the player out of range of the melee attack).

A second counter-argument is that Shadowslip isn't actually a triggered free action- normally, one uses Cloud of Darkness on their own turn, and the Feat simply allows you to use a free action to shift 2 squares after you use Cloud of Darkness (which normally requires a minor action). In this scenario, the shift can still be used when it's not your turn, but it cannot occur during another action. Thus the proper sequence of events would be that the player is targeted, he places himself in a heavily obscured space, and after the attack is resolved, he can then shift.

I appreciate any assistance in sorting out this mess, as even if it does work as the player described it, the abilities need some clarification. Thank you in advance.

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks

Immediate Reactions react to the whole action - the whole thing takes place after the attack's resolved.

It would have to be an immediate interrupt to function the way it's described here, and even then the shift would happen as a reaction, because it's a triggered free action which doesn't need to be an interrupt (and it's still a triggered free action, even if you use it on your turn - if it were not, you would be able to do it any time, not just when you use CoD).

1) his character is targeted by a Melee 4 attack. He's currently three squares away.2) Instinctive Darkness has his cloud of darkness racial power trigger as an immediate reaction to being targeted by the melee attack.

Resolves after the triggering event, meaning he's already been attacked, and taken damage, when he uses the power.

If it was meant to give penalties to the attack, it would be an interrupt. It's not an interrupt, so it doesn't interrupt. Reactions are not interrupts.

3) Shadowslip allows him to shift 2 squares as a free action whenever he uses cloud of darkness. The player presents the argument that this is a triggered free action. As a result, it functions similarly to an immediate reaction to the use of cloud of darkness. He then shifts out of reach of the attack.

He's correct, it functions as a Reaction, which means it happens after Cloud Of Darkness resolves. Cloud Of Darkness resolves after the attack resolves, because it is also a REACTION.

Reactions react. They do not interrupt.

There is no problem here.

A lot of this is contingent on the fact that "being targeted by an attack" occurs before the attack roll is made

You cannot "react" to targeting and thus "interrupt" the attack. That allows reactions to be interrupts. This is not allowed.

as best as we understand, this allows a Paladin's Divine Challenge/Divine Sanction to trigger before the attack roll is made (thus if the damage somehow kills the enemy, the attack itself is negated).

Not a similar situation. Divine Challenge is not any kind of action, not even a triggered free action.

Thus, the intent of Instinctive Darkness is clear- you target the Drow, he obscures the spaces around him before the attack roll is made, thus reducing the chance of the attack to hit.

No, if that was the intent it would be an Interrupt. It is not an interrupt, it is a reaction. The intent is clear: You *react* to being attacked and possibly hit and possibly not by spewing your ink like a frightened squidmonster.

(Which is why I believe it's a reaction to the targeting of an attack; a standard interrupt to "you are hit by an attack" to increase your defenses allows you to change your defenses, but does not penalize the attack roll- by the time the attack roll result is known, it's too late to give that an attack a penalty. If this is not the case, then the Feat is needlessly confusing for no good reason!).

No, you're wrong. Interrupts can invalidate their own trigger, and an interrupt to being hit can make the hit miss for any number of reasons.

It's a Reaction because it's supposed to happen after, not before. It's to being "targeted" because you're supposed to be able to use it on any attack - one that hits, one that misses, one that just does autodamage as an effect, whatever.

Since the power must be resolved before the attack roll,

That's an Interrupt. Reactions specifically CANNOT do this, because they are reactions.

The counter-argument, however, states that a reaction ability to being targeted by an attack cannot result in a scenario where the attack is no longer legal (ie, the shift moving the player out of range of the melee attack).

Yes, because a reaction to part of an attack happens after the attack resolves.

A second counter-argument is that Shadowslip isn't actually a triggered free action- normally, one uses Cloud of Darkness on their own turn, and the Feat simply allows you to use a free action to shift 2 squares after you use Cloud of Darkness (which normally requires a minor action).

No, that's wrong - it's a Free Action, triggered by using Cloud Of Darkness. That's pretty much the definition of a Triggered Free Action.

I appreciate any assistance in sorting out this mess, as even if it does work as the player described it, the abilities need some clarification. Thank you in advance.

The player is wrong because he is trying to turn a Reaction into an Interrupt.

Remember, Interrupts happen before the triggering event resolves, and can invalidate their own trigger. Reactions happen AFTER the triggereing event resolves, and CANNOT invalidate their own trigger. That's the difference. Any time you think you see a Reaction invalidating it's own trigger, you're doing something wrong.

Immediate Reactions react to the whole action - the whole thing takes place after the attack's resolved.

Almost correct: They react to the entire action, with two exceptions: A reaction to a single step of movement interrupts all further parts of the action, and a reaction to a single attack interrupts all further parts of the action.

So you're right, the reaction happens AFTER the attack, but it might happen BEFORE the rest of the action if the action was "attack, move, attack" or something like that.

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish. The Trigger here would be to be targeted not attacked or hit. Just like how Divine Challenge interrupt before the attack takes place, so should Instinctive Darkness.

RC 197 Immediate Reactions: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

I don't know if Shadowslip can be considered a Triggerred Free action. It lacks any formal Trigger entry. But at the same time it has an event defining when to you Shift.

RC 195 Triggerred Actions: A Trigger is an action, an event or an effect that allows the use of a Triggerred Actions. Two actions types - Immediate actions and Opportunity actions - always have Triggers. Free actions sometimes have Triggers as well, as do some Powers and effects that require no actions at all.

Instinctive Darkness is an immediate reaction, which means that the close or melee attack (trigger) would resolve before ID happens, and therefore before Shadowslip does.

Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish. The Trigger here would be to be targeted not attacked or hit. Just like how Divine Challenge interrupt before the attack takes place, so should Instinctive Darkness.

RC 197 Immediate Reactions: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

This is a very badly written rule. What they mean to say here, I think, is that you can react to individual squares of movement. What's been done by several people here is to expand this into the Making an Attack sequence which lets reactions interrupt attacks. I think that's an overly generous reading of this rule. The movement reaction-interrupt is explicitly called out. No such wording exists for a reaction interrupting an attack.

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish. The Trigger here would be to be targeted not attacked or hit. Just like how Divine Challenge interrupt before the attack takes place, so should Instinctive Darkness.

RC 197 Immediate Reactions: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

This is a very badly written rule. What they mean to say here, I think, is that you can react to individual squares of movement. What's been done by several people here is to expand this into the Making an Attack sequence which lets reactions interrupt attacks. I think that's an overly generous reading of this rule. The movement reaction-interrupt is explicitly called out. No such wording exists for a reaction interrupting an attack.

The school of thought is that a "triggering action or event" includes any step of the attack process as an atomic "event". (I don't agree at all, but that is the argument as I understand it.)

And again I would state that reading the Making an Attack sequence in such a way that makes reactions interrupt attacks is overly generous. The Making an Attack sequence indicates nothing that allows for "space" for the time for reactions, just the fact that it's arrangedin a list of steps. Movement, on the other hand, has an exception for reaction timing written into it. Attacking doesn't.

This is a very badly written rule. What they mean to say here, I think, is that you can react to individual squares of movement. What's been done by several people here is to expand this into the Making an Attack sequence which lets reactions interrupt attacks. I think that's an overly generous reading of this rule. The movement reaction-interrupt is explicitly called out. No such wording exists for a reaction interrupting an attack.

The exemple that follow this quote is pretty much explicit that it doesn't only apply to movement.

RC 196 Immediate Reaction: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger. The Triggerring action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish. Exemple: An Elder Dragon’s Claw Attack Power is a standard action that allow two attack rolls againt the same target. The Dragon faces Fargrim the Fighter, who has an Immediate Reaction (Veteran Gambit) that is Triggerred by being hit with a melee attack. If the Dragon uses Claw Power and Hits Fargrim with the first attack roll, he can use Veteran Gambit in response to that hit. In that case, the Immediate Reaction waits for that hit to be resolved, but does not wait for the entire Power to be resolved.Likewise, an Immediate Reaction can interrupt movement. Here’s how: If a creature Triggers an Immediate Reaction while moving (by coming into range for insyance) the Reraction can take place before the creature finishes moving, but after it has moved at least 1 square. In other words, an Immediate Reaction can be in response to a square of movement, rather than to n entire move action

Reactions don't interrupt attacks. It's why they're reactions.

If the attack is the Trigger. Here, like Divine Challenge, the Trigger is an event and thus resolved completly before taking place, which means the creature is targeted. The PHB FAQ address it for DC, not as clear as i would like but it does.

40.When does the damage from divine challenge occur? If it’s enough to kill the monster making the attack, does his attack still happen? Divine challenge was recently updated. Please feel free to review the recent update, here, which clarifies this issue.

It allows for a reaction between attacks, but not a reaction within an attack. In this way the wording parallels very well with that describing movement. You can react after each square in a multi-square movement, and you can react after each attack in a multi-attack standard action. Nowhere does it say that you can interrupt an attack with a reaction.

Divine Challenge is not an immediate reaction. It is a triggered non-action that has been FAQ'd into the interrupt category (as some must be in order to function, this is an exception to the "must" part), which puts it in similar potency to the rest of the mark violation mechanics.

It is in no way an example of the general rule governing reactions, and its mechanics have absolutely no bearing on the question at hand.

Divine Challenge is not an immediate reaction. It is a triggered non-action

And as such it behaves like one

RC 197 Other Triggerred Effect: If an effect has a trigger but is neither an immediate action nor an opportunity action, assume that it behaves like an immediate reaction, waiting for its trigger to completely resolve.

We have two interpretations that have the same rules result: Divine Challenge can kill the attacker and invalidate the attack.

Your interpretation makes it so all reactions can interrupt attacks. My interpretation makes it so that only those with an actual exception do so, and DC was given such an exception. Given the utter absence of a general rule that says that reactions can interrupt an attack, I can't see how you can choose this example as representative.

Really, the only justficiation for your line of reasoning is the "Not all reactions resolve after the action containing them resolves." That's not a general rule, in fact it's the opposite of a general rule. The general rule is that they do resolve after the action, with some exceptions such as multiattack powers and multi-square movement, as it clearly states.

I'd like you to provide some more concrete justification beyond just this line indicating that intermediate steps within the Making an Attack sequence have reaction-time pauses between them. So far, I haven't found anything other than "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6" and that quite frankly isn't good enough.

Really, the only justficiation for your line of reasoning is the "Not all reactions resolve after the action containing them resolves." That's not a general rule, in fact it's the opposite of a general rule. The general rule is that they do resolve after the action, with some exceptions such as multiattack powers and multi-square movement, as it clearly states.

No the genereal rule is:

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Not the action that contain the trigger, just the triggerring event or action. So depending on what the Trigger is an Immediate Reaction will interrupt, and not just for multi-attacks and movement. These are simply exemples and don't represent the only possible adjucation.

First of all, thanks for the replies. I feel a little bit better about being confused on this topic, since there are several disparate views. The question that I now have, however, is about the trigger itself.

What's the difference between a reaction set to trigger:

-when you are targeted by an attack.-when you are attacked.-when you are hit.-when you are damaged by an attack.

Because it sounds like people are saying that in all of these cases, the reaction doesn't resolve until the attack resolves, and if that's the case, why have different triggers in response to the attack?

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks

How i understands it, being targeted is a distinct event (RC 105) that happen when a Power is used. Its not necessarly during an attack and can be resolved before a Reaction can interrupt the rest of the action that contain the trigger.

An attack is another distinct event (RC 308) and thus resolve completly before a Reaction can interrupt it. An attack include an attack roll, its damage and other efffect.

So when refering to Making Attacks (RC 214) Step 2: Choose Target happens before the attack at step 3: Make an Attack roll and since an attack is basically Step 3-4-5 then any Reaction that trigger off being attacked, hit or damage will resolve after those steps.

Step 6 indicate to me that Step 2 happens before an attack

RC 214 Making Attacks:

1. Choose Power2. Choose Targets3. Make Attack roll4. Compare Attack roll to target Defense and see if it Hit or Miss5. If the attack Hit, deal damage and other effects.6. If the attack has more than 1 target, repeat step 3 through 5 for each attacks.

The Power Holy Smite for exemple, deal damage before the triggerring attack IMO. The Effect line seem to support this as well, by saying that If the triggering attack hits, the target is also dazed until the end of your next turn.

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Yes. For an example, you can react to each step of a multi-step movement and each attack of a multi-attack power.

The Trigger here would be to be targeted not attacked or hit.

Yes, and, being a Reaction, the Reaction resolves AFTER the attack that triggers it. In order to happen before the attack completely resolves, it would have to be an interrupt.

Interrupts happen before their trigger. Reactions happen after their trigger. No action ever happens *during* another event.

Just like how Divine Challenge interrupt before the attack takes place, so should Instinctive Darkness.

Not the same thing at all. Divine Challenge is not an action, and is not a reaciton.

RC 197 Immediate Reactions: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Your creative misinterpretation of this poorly-rephrased rule to allow Reactions to be Interrupts is creative, but a misinterpretation. We can tell that it's definitely not intended to be misread that way, because your misreading of the rule allows Reactions to happen before their trigger resolves, making them Interrupts.

How i understands it, being targeted is a distinct event (RC 105) that happen when a Power is used. Its not necessarly during an attack and can be resolved before a Reaction can interrupt the rest of the action that contain the trigger.

First of all, thanks for the replies. I feel a little bit better about being confused on this topic, since there are several disparate views. The question that I now have, however, is about the trigger itself.

What's the difference between a reaction set to trigger:

-when you are targeted by an attack.-when you are attacked.-when you are hit.-when you are damaged by an attack.

Because it sounds like people are saying that in all of these cases, the reaction doesn't resolve until the attack resolves, and if that's the case, why have different triggers in response to the attack?

Because the powers respond to different things. A power that responds to you being hit and allows you to spend a surge, for instance, might be overpowered in reaction to you being missed. A power that reacts to you being damaged, and minimises damage, wouldn't do anything if the attack did no damage, and having it react to damage makes it impossible to waste on a non-damaging attack. Etc.

And the most important part about powers responding to different things is that despite WotC feeling like a step-by-step list was the best way of explaining several simultaneous things a player has to keep in mind while attacking does not mean that there are distinct timing windows where reactions can resolve. Saying otherwise is reading into the rules, and is not valid.

An attack is a discrete event. An attack can be interrupted, but it takes an interrupt to do so. The presence of multiple configurations of triggers for things related to attacking does not change the fact that it is an attack that is the trigger.

I hate to put it to RAI, but if reactions in question were supposed to interrupt they would be interrupts. That's like saying "A longsword's damage die is d8, though sometimes it's d10." And then proceeding to say that all circumstances you should use a d10. It's not logical.

You will not convince me that any interpretation that results in one game element ceasing to exist arbitrarily under vague, unspecified circumstances and being subsumed into another game element is a valid interpretation.

First of all, thanks for the replies. I feel a little bit better about being confused on this topic, since there are several disparate views.

There really aren't. There are the "reactions are reactions" people, and the "reactions are interrupts" people, and the "reactions are interrupts" people are wrong because reactions are reactions, not interrupts.

The question that I now have, however, is about the trigger itself.

What's the difference between a reaction set to trigger:-when you are targeted by an attack.-when you are attacked.-when you are hit.-when you are damaged by an attack.

Because it sounds like people are saying that in all of these cases, the reaction doesn't resolve until the attack resolves, and if that's the case, why have different triggers in response to the attack?

#1: Yes, in NO CASE does your Reaction happen before the attack completely resolves.#2: The four conditions (and several others!) exist because they are different circumstances.

-when you are targeted by an attack.

Includes when you are Hit, when you are Missed, and when you are neither hit nor missed - for example, you can use this when targeted with Magic Missile.

-when you are attacked.

Nearly identical to the first, but simply a phrasing used by different writers.

-when you are hit.

Doesn't trigger if you're missed, or if you're targeted by an attack that doesn't Hit. Magic Missile, for example, can't be Reacted to with this power.

-when you are damaged by an attack

Many attacks don't do damage, and you can't use these reactions in response to them. Some attacks do damage on a miss - a power that damages on a miss can be Reacted to with this. If your Reaction said "Hit", you couldn't use it if you were damaged by a power that does damage on a miss.

The different triggers exist because different powers trigger on different things. The power type, though, regardless of what triggers it, tells you WHEN it resolves: Reactions resolve after, Interrupts resolve before.

Really, the only justficiation for your line of reasoning is the "Not all reactions resolve after the action containing them resolves." That's not a general rule, in fact it's the opposite of a general rule. The general rule is that they do resolve after the action, with some exceptions such as multiattack powers and multi-square movement, as it clearly states.

No the genereal rule is:

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Not the action that contain the trigger, just the triggerring event or action. So depending on what the Trigger is an Immediate Reaction will interrupt, and not just for multi-attacks and movement. These are simply exemples and don't represent the only possible adjucation.

The general rule the very sentence before your quote tells you to resolve the triggering action or event completely before the reaction. Either there are two consecutive sentences that directly contradict each other, or the line you're quoting is talking about reacting in between attacks or squares of movement that occur as part of the same action. In that the line is followed with an example of reacting in between attacks of a multiattack power, it's clear that the sentence you quoted is talking about reacting in between attacks or squares of movement.

The different triggers exist because different powers trigger on different things. The power type, though, regardless of what triggers it, tells you WHEN it resolves: Reactions resolve after, Interrupts resolve before.

Yes, and, being a Reaction, the Reaction resolves AFTER the attack that triggers it. In order to happen before the attack completely resolves, it would have to be an interrupt.

Interrupts happen before their trigger. Reactions happen after their trigger. No action ever happens *during* another event.

Its not being attacked that triggers Instinctive Darkness its being targeted.

Not the same thing at all. Divine Challenge is not an action, and is not a reaciton.

Other Triggerred Actions include ones that are not an action. Divine Challenge is a Triggerred No Action(RC 197)

RC 197 Immediate Reactions: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a trigger. The triggering action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place.An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Your creative misinterpretation of this poorly-rephrased rule to allow Reactions to be Interrupts is creative, but a misinterpretation. We can tell that it's definitely not intended to be misread that way, because your misreading of the rule allows Reactions to happen before their trigger resolves, making them Interrupts.

Why you bold only part of the Rule ? An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Divine Challenge FAQ support this view. Holy Smite support this view

Do you think that Holy Smite happen before or after the triggerring attack ? To me it seems like Holy Smite damage the target before the triggerring enemy is attacked by the triggerring attack, since the effect line says ''If the triggering attack hits, the target is also dazed until the end of your next turn.''

Triggerred Free action function as Reaction.

1. You target an enemy with an at-will weapon2. The target takes radiant damage equal to 2 + your Charisma modifier. 3. If the triggering attack hits, the target is also dazed until the end of your next turn. 4. You make your at-will attack

Holy SmiteYour weapon fills with divine radiant energy, which bursts forth as you strike your enemy.Encounter - Divine, RadiantFree Action Personal Trigger: You target an enemy with an at-will weapon attack power. Effect: The target takes radiant damage equal to 2 + your Charisma modifier. If the triggering attack hits, the target is also dazed until the end of your next turn.

You make the choice to Holy Smite before you make the attack roll, but all effects of it apply after the attack is resolved because nothing in it requires it to be an interrupt to function. The damage is applied on a hit or a miss or neither, but it doesn't kill the target before you swing at it.

So no, Holy Smite does not "support" your view. You're applying your view to it, just as you're appyling your view to Divine Challenge. The FAQ providing a unique exception ("this triggered non-action has interrupt timing" is what it says) for that particular power does not mean that your view of the general rule is accurate.

You need things that actually support your position, not things that you can apply your position to and show that they agree with your position. You're engaging in circular argument if you do so.

Edit: This is why your argument fails.

1. You target an enemy with an at-will weapon2. The target takes radiant damage equal to 2 + your Charisma modifier. 3. If the triggering attack hits, the target is also dazed until the end of your next turn. 4. You make your at-will attack

At step 3 under your interpretation, there is no attack yet. Holy Smite cannot resolve without it. The entire effect resolves at the same time, you can't just pick and choose.

Indeed; Holy Smite is actually an argument against reactions resolving mid attack, not for it, since despite triggering on targetting it wouldn't work if you tried to resolve it before the attack had resolved.

Yes, and, being a Reaction, the Reaction resolves AFTER the attack that triggers it. In order to happen before the attack completely resolves, it would have to be an interrupt.

Interrupts happen before their trigger. Reactions happen after their trigger. No action ever happens *during* another event.

Its not being attacked that triggers Instinctive Darkness its being targeted.

Correct, and since it's a reaction, it resolves after the triggering event resolves completely.

"being targeted" is not an event. "an attack" is an event, "a step of movement" is an event, and "an action" is an event. The first two can occur as part of the third. In the mean time, with the exception of reactions to a step of movement or an attack, or things where the timing is necessary, actions do not happen during other actions.

The fact that the trigger happens when you're targeted just means that the necessary component to use the reaction has been reached. The reason it says "targeted" is so you don't have to worry about hit, missed, "neither hit nor missed", or any other possible attack results - if you were targeted, this power works.

Why you bold only part of the Rule ?

Because that's the part I wanted to emphasise, of course.

An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to Finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

It waits for the event that contains the trigger to finish, yes.

Divine Challenge FAQ support this view.

Not a Reaction.

Holy Smite support this view

Holy Smite is a triggered free action that cannot function as a reaction, as such it is an INTERRUPT, as per the rules for triggered free actions.

Do you think that Holy Smite happen before or after the triggerring attack ?

Before, of course. The "if the attack hits" bit means it can't happen after. Which means it is an INTERRUPT and not, as you incorrectly claim, an example of a Reaction really being an Interrupt because you say Reactions are Interrupts.

Triggerred Free action function as Reaction.

1. You target an enemy with an at-will weapon2. The target takes radiant damage equal to 2 + your Charisma modifier. 3. If the triggering attack hits, the target is also dazed until the end of your next turn. 4. You make your at-will attack

This is a very badly written rule. What they mean to say here, I think, is that you can react to individual squares of movement. What's been done by several people here is to expand this into the Making an Attack sequence which lets reactions interrupt attacks.

The expansion into the Making an Attack sequence was done by WotC, it's in the FAQ, and it does NOT allow a reaction to interrupt an attack.

I think that's an overly generous reading of this rule. The movement reaction-interrupt is explicitly called out. No such wording exists for a reaction interrupting an attack.

A reaction cannot interrupt an attack.

However, if a single action involves an attack followed by something else (movement, another attack, whatever), a reaction to the first attack can invalidate the something else. Not the attack it is reacting to, just what comes after it.

The real problem here is that the Making an Attack sequence in the books (PHB *and* Rules Compendium) assumes that the use of an attack power consists of one attack, period (possibly involving multiple targets, but still only one attack), and doesn't talk about reactions. Or interrupts.

I submit for consideration "Tempest Dance": attack, shift, attack, shift, attack - one power, one action. Should the first target's ability to react with a melee counterattack (assuming the creature has that ability) be voided because the dancer is two squares away by the time the action is complete? If not, and that melee counterattack kills the dancer, wouldn't that invalidate the rest of the "Tempest Dance" power?

I've thought about it and decided it would be extremely difficult to come up with a single clear sequence that properly covers both single-attack multi-target powers and multi-attack powers. There really need to be at least two sequences. And both sequences should allow for sub-actions that are not attacks, and specify when interrupts and reactions (to what) occur.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

Attacks are indivisible.Moving a square is indivisible.After either of these situations, a reaction to one of them will resolve immediately.Powers that include both attacks and movement can be interrupted by reactions to either step. Both of these situations are clearly explained by the reaction rules.

Tempest Dance is an attack, a movement, an attack, a movement, and an attack. A reaction to the first attack resolves after the first attack. A reaction to the movement resolves after the movement to the square that triggers the reaction. A reaction to the second attack resolves after the second attack. A reaction to the second movement will resolve after the movement to the square that triggers the reaction. A reaction to the third attack will resolve after the third attack.

There's nothing problematic with this process, and it runs into no conflicts.

I've thought about it and decided it would be extremely difficult to come up with a single clear sequence that properly covers both single-attack multi-target powers and multi-attack powers.

Clear-but-unspoken, already part of the rules, is the idea of an "event" - just as "Hidden" is not a real 'condition' with the glossary entries that implies, an "event" is not explicitly defined, but it *is* still clearly present in the rules.

An event is atomic, indivisible. Actions may happen before or after it, but not during it.

There are four things that are events:1) a single step of movement.2) a single attack.3) a single action that does not contain any movement or any attacks.4) something that is not an action but still has a defined behaviour[1]

Each of these things can be Interrupted, and Reacted to.Interrupts resolve before the triggering event, and may invalidate their own trigger.Reactions resolve after the triggering event, and may not invalidate their own trigger. A Reaction to an event is an Interrupt to all further events, even further events coming from the same action.

The trigger may happen at any point during an event - it may be when the enemy targets you or attacks you or hits you or does damage to you, or it might be when he leaves a square or when he enters a square or when he moves more than one square - it doesn't matter. What matters is that the trigger happened, so either you put the event on hold and resolve your action completely BEFORE the trigger-containing event finishes (an Interrupt) or you wait until the trigger-containing event completely finishes and then you resolve your action (a Reaction).

Pre-RC, this was ALMOST the rule, and it was undeniably RAI. Catch is, there was a technical loophole in the Reaction rules: You could React to a step of movement to interrupt *further steps of movement*, and you could React to an attack to interrupt *further attacks* - but technically, they'd left out the idea of reacting to movement to interrupt attacks or reacting to attacks to interrupt movement. It was IMPLIED that that would happen, it's transparently obvious that that SHOULD happen, but nothing said it DID happen.

The RC *tries* to correct that, but because whoever wrote it was, uh, not a technical writer or good with mechanics, they instead added a new ambiguity: By tilting your head to the side, squinting, and wishing fervently, you can deliberately misread the RC version to turn *all* Reactions into Interrupts, resolving before the trigger-containing event resolves and capable of invalidating their own trigger. The fact that this requires that you ignore several clauses, give undue weight to others, completely gut RAI, *and* will utterly destroy the balance of all the powers involved is irrelevant: "reactions are interrupts" players insist that reactions are interrupts ANYWAY because it makes their characters more powerful.

[1]: moving platforms, the ceiling collapsing a little further each round, the water rising, the river flowing and carrying everyone in it 1 square downstream, etc. A catchall for "something happening that works like an action, an attack, or a move, but isn't any of them."

The Rule Compendium doesn't say that. Only the triggerring event or action resolve, not the whole action containing the Trigger. Its even the contrary.

RC 196 Immediate Reaction: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger. The Triggerring action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Indeed; Holy Smite is actually an argument against reactions resolving mid attack, not for it, since despite triggering on targetting it wouldn't work if you tried to resolve it before the attack had resolved

Why ? The Trigger is not related to the attack itself, but to an event happening before the attack.

Holy Smite is the perfect exemple to illustrate what i am talking about. If you misinterpret the Trigger of Holy Smite, and take it to React to the attack action rather than the targeting event, then you will end up after the attack. If Holy Smite was happening after the attack, it would say if the attack was a hit, and not referring to it in future like it didnt happen yet. If those game element were meant to not happen before that action that include them, here an attack, then the Trtigger would have been either being attacked or hit or missed and not some event happening before an attack roll.

It is the very same reason why Divine Challenge interrupt the attack action, because it trigger off of the targeting event and thus only waits for its Trigger to Finish (being targeted), not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish (being attacked).

A reaction cannot interrupt an attack.

Correction, a Reaction cannot interrupt its Trigger. If the Trigger is not an attack, it can interrupt it. If an Immediate Reaction trigger off being bloodied by an attack, once you rosolve being bloodied, your effect will go off, even if the Triggerring attack had other effect in the Hit line after the damage line in subsequent sentences.

For Exemple, If Reacting with Awakened Wrath to being bloodied by an attack such as Driving Attack, your effect would go before the Fighter Shift because the Trigger has nothing to do with the attack. Once you'd resolve being bloodied, the effect would go off. Reaction resolve after the Trigger, independant if it is an attack or not.

Driving Attack: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square. You then shift 1 square to a square the target vacated. Make a secondary attack against the target.

RC 196 Immediate Reaction:An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger. The Triggerring action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

The second sentence tells you to resolve the triggering action or event. The third, the way you read it, tells you not to. Fortunately the example text after the third sentence tells us not to read it the way you do, or we'd have a problem deciding which sentence was the real rule.

Indeed; Holy Smite is actually an argument against reactions resolving mid attack, not for it, since despite triggering on targetting it wouldn't work if you tried to resolve it before the attack had resolved

Why ? The Trigger is not related to the attack itself, but to an event happening before the attack.

No, the trigger is to part of making an attack; targetting is part of making an attack.

Holy Smite is the perfect exemple to illustrate what i am talking about. If you misinterpret the Trigger of Holy Smite, and take it to React to the attack action rather than the targeting event, then you will end up after the attack. If Holy Smite was happening after the attack, it would say if the attack was a hit, and not referring to it in future like it didnt happen yet. If those game element were meant to not happen before that action that include them, here an attack, then the Trtigger would have been either being attacked or hit or missed and not some event happening before an attack roll.

"If it hits" is simple present, not a future tense. That's certainly not a basis for deciding that it must resolve before determining a hit, especially since it needs to determine a hit before it resolves. Being attacked, hit, or missed would all be horrible triggers, since targettings someone has nothing to do with being attacked, hit, or missed. Hitting or missing the target would be an equally bad trigger for something that varies in effect based on whether you hit or missed. It chooses something that occurs before an attack roll because you're not supposed to know the result of the attack roll when you choose to use the power.

It is the very same reason why Divine Challenge interrupt the attack action, because it trigger off of the targeting event and thus only waits for its Trigger to Finish (being targeted), not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish (being attacked).

Divine Challenge is neither an immediate reaction nor something that resolves as one. It's not a triggered action. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

More than once, I've seen a player with a defensive Immediate Reaction power be unable to use it, because an attack causes them to become dazed (like the Kensei's power to reduce the damage of an attack). So I have a side question, with regards to triggered actions.

Let's assume that I'm being attacked by a power that dazes if I hit, and I have Instinctive Darkness. The attack targets me, and I play my reaction, even though it has to wait for the action to resolve before it goes off. Am I right in thinking that even if I become dazed by the attack, my Cloud of Darkness still appears, because I triggered the power before I was dazed?

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks

Divine Challenge is neither an immediate reaction nor something that resolves as one. It's not a triggered action. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

If Divine Challenge is not a Triggerred Action because it has no Trigger, then Instictive Darknes isn't one either since it has no Trigger entry.

IMO Divine Challenge punishment is a Triggerred No Action that behave like an Immediate Reaction.

I only brought it up to make my point about targeting and timing. Since it distract from the conversation, i will let it go. :P

Not having a trigger entry has nothing to do with it; Divine Challenge doesn't meet the definition of a triggered action, which is an action or non-action you can take when a trigger occurs. The word "can" is the important part there; damage from Divine Challenge is not something you choose to inflict. It happens without any intervention on your part; you couldn't even stop it if you wanted to. It thus doesn't qualify as a triggered action and certainly doesn't behave as an immediate reaction.

The Rule Compendium doesn't say that. Only the triggerring event or action resolve, not the whole action containing the Trigger. Its even the contrary.

RC 196 Immediate Reaction: An immediate Reaction lets a creature act in response to a Trigger. The Triggerring action or event occurs and is completely resolved before the Reaction takes place. An Immediate Reaction waits for its Trigger to finish, not necessarly for the action that contains the Trigger to finish.

Yes, that IS the poorly written text that I mentioned people were deliberately misreading in order to argue that Reactions resolve before the attack they're Reacting to - which is to say, that "reactions are interrupts".